Grievance Case Summary - G-526

The Grievor resided and served aboard multiple Canadian Naval ships during his deployment at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. He said that while he was aboard the vessels, he needed “to be ready to immediately respond to situations as required following my regular shift”. He specified that he continuously had to be “available to the ship’s Captain” in order to give law enforcement advice and guidance. He also remarked that the quality of his accommodations at sea were not what he had expected. He nevertheless “accepted [those accommodations] without complaint”.

The Grievor felt his status aboard the Naval ships placed him within the definition of “Immediate Operational Readiness”, as found in section 16.12 of the RCMP Operational Manual (OM). He therefore believed he was entitled to Immediate Operational Readiness compensation under the Force’s Pay and Allowances Policy, RCMP Administration Manual, Chapter II, Part 4 (AM II.4). He submitted an expense claim to that effect.

The Respondent rejected the claim. In so doing, he relied upon an Appendix of AM II.4. It stipulated, regarding overtime at sea: “[i]f accommodation is available [on-board] ship, i.e. sleeping quarters, do not claim overtime/standby for non-duty hours”. He contended that the Grievor was not entitled to the funds sought, as the Naval vessels contained sleeping quarters.

The Grievor filed a grievance. The Level I Adjudicator denied it on the ground that the Grievor failed to establish that he was in Immediate Operational Readiness status. He explained that the Grievor was never made a “designated responder” in accordance with section 16.12 of the OM, which was a condition to obtaining such status. No new authorities were raised at Level II.

The ERC pointed out that under section 36 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, five types of grievances are referable to the ERC. Four of them deal with very particular issues that clearly do not arise in this case. The remaining type of referable grievance involves matters “relating to the Force's interpretation and application of government policies that apply to government departments and that have been made to apply to members”.

The ERC noted that the grievance concerns the Force’s interpretation and application of two policies. One is section 16.12 of the OM. The other is AM II.4. Those policies applied only to RCMP members. As they were not government-wide policies, the matter was not referable.

The ERC speculated that the grievance might well have been referred to the ERC because the Grievor commented on his accommodations while at sea, and accommodation issues can be referable. Although the Grievor mentioned this issue, it was not the subject of the grievance.

This grievance is not referable to the ERC. As a result, the ERC does not have the legal authority to review the matter or make a recommendation.

The Commissioner has rendered a decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

In a decision dated May 16, 2012, the Commissioner agreed with the ERC that the subject-matter of the grievance did not meet the criteria set out at section 36 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, and therefore the grievance was not referable to the ERC. This also meant that the grievance could be adjudicated at Level II by a designated Level II Adjudicator rather than the Commissioner himself. Accordingly, the Commissioner referred the grievance to a designated Level II Adjudicator for a decision to be reached on the grievance.